I’ve been harboring deep suspicions, especially after the second viewing, thatThe Dark Knight(TDK) qualifies as a neoconservative film. This is, of course, in no part a reflection of the creators or writers. Neoconservative films like Charlie Wilson’s War and Gone Baby Gone come into being usually out of mere coincidence.

Before I go on, let’s establish what brand of neoconservatism I’m talking about, and specifically what themes from the neoconservative school I’m trying to emphasize. The focus here is on second generation neoconservatives primarily concerned with a post-Cold War, Bin Laden-emergent world. This is in opposition to the more variegated first-generation neocons like Irving Kristol and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who possessed large differences on a variety of domestic and foreign issues, but shared a common philosophy that liberalism’s social welfare state aspirations, ahistoric progressivism, and accommodations towards communism were no longer tolerable. Recognition that international law is weak, violation of norms for the purpose of desired ends, and a weariness of compromising fundamental principles for calculations of utility: these are the principles the second-generation neocons care about, and the ones we should be focusing on with regards to TDK.

Batman the Vigilante

One of the main accusations hurled at the neocon vision of American power is that it is unrestrained and unruly. America under Bush has been characterized as a lone gunman, a cowboy outlaw taking arrogantly taking matters into its own hands. Certainly this has been the supposed case with the war in Iraq, which did not attain UN Security Council clearance and was in violation of resolution 1444. For neocons, this was necessary, even if unfortunate. Neocons do not privilege international law (as dictated by UN governance bodies) over the assumed universally natural rights of all human beings. While they prefer to work multilaterally, they do not assume UN legal processes are sacred rites that legitimize any act.

Moreover, in a world that is absent a “leviathan,” a world where the UN is unable and often unwilling to enforce its dictates due to politicization, the need for a lone, principled cowboy becomes evident. This is a dangerous proposition to make, and it comes with the caveat that the cowboy himself must not betray his own principles. But unfortunately, this is the world we live in, and any desire to achieve a better, more principled world requires that we break agreed-upon norms sometimes.

Batman is first and foremost a vigilante, which is by definition an outlaw. He exists and acts forever in violation of the agreed upon rules of society. But he realizes that innocent human lives must not submit to technicalities and bureaucratic processes that let criminals walk. Such a reality is unjust, even if it is indeed legal.

In Batman’s world, the body that is supposed govern over all others is inept and corrupt. Its own police force is laden with spies from the underworld. Large enterprises are either owned by crime families or are complicit in their perpetuity. Gotham’s political leaders and law enforcers, like the UN, are either unable or unwilling to act in the name of justice. Batman, like the lone American cowboy, may be illegal, but his existence is derivative of a society that is so weak and degenerate it needs a vigilante save to it.

Neocons would argue that in a world where everyone is willing to act in accordance to liberal values – where governments do not commit genocide on their own people or murder dissidents en masse – international legality, even if it is imperfect, can exist and govern over us all. Liberal democracies can submit to international rulings out of cooperation and acknowledged mutual interest in perpetuating a rules-based society for the goods of peace, prosperity, and harmony it brings. Batman would argue that in a Gotham where the police can be trusted and the politicians possess courage, he can willingly submit to the rule of law. But neither neocons nor Batman live in the fantasies they wish were reality.

Principles vs. Norms

One of the second-generation neocons’ main principles is democracy promotion. Charles Krauthammer has framed neoconservatism as in fact a type of democratic realism. For all the violations of international laws and norms, neocons do not take principles lightly (or at least, they shouldn’t). They certainly do not advocate for the lone American cowboy to disregard human rights, democratic dissidents, and political freedoms, whether at home or abroad, when it is actively trying to shape a better world. For Batman, this means keeping in tact his strongest conviction: that he will not kill. In their respective worlds, both neocons and Batman must endure tests to such principles.

In short, if the Joker’s goal is to create a dilemma where the most attractive option is to “do evil that good may result,” several characters reject the appeal of self-interest and choose good even if evil may result.

For Batman, this means not killing the Joker even if it implies more deaths in the future. It means not killing the crime lords even if the result is that they will be allowed to walk.

For neocons, one of the greatest challenges to their democracy promotion, especially when it comes to the Middle East, is the charge that it will merely bring terrorists into power. While neocons will certainly reject this on substantive grounds, they are also willing to endure the heat even if it does indeed lead to some thorns in the side in the short term. And of-course, on substantive grounds, neocons will point to the dangers of selling out one’s liberal principles.

One of the problems, as they asserted when it came to coddling Middle Eastern dictators during the Cold War in the name of stability, is that making deals with the devil will only lead to more problems down the road. The despots and autocrats the U.S. worked with during the Cold Ear marginalized and alienated their own people to the point where they were more capable of empowering a Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda within their own populations.

In TDK, this was exemplified in inspector Gordon’s willingness to compromise integrity and trust for the “pragmatic” employment of able-bodied men and women, even if they had criminal records of their own. In one dispute between Gordon and Dent, the former retorts to the latter’s charge of turning a blind eye to corruption by saying that he could not afford to act with the kind of ideals his counterpart possessed. The end result, as we witness, is the MCU (Major Crimes Unit) betrayal of Gordon. Both Dent and Dawes are sent to their deaths by MCU cops, one of whom was Gordon’s right-hand woman. Just as Gordon learned his lesson tragically late, the U.S. has had to witness the calamity of 9/11 before it could realize that the devil could not be trusted.